Bracketology

[sioux7>5]

Gosh I get sick and tired of reading about the Goofies and their so-called "chances," and who they are, where they have been, and when and where they might be going, on this board. I understand that this is a Bracketology thread, so it is certainly a legitimate discussion. Nonetheless, I get tired of certain folks getting their strokes over the Goofs' pretended chances over here instead of over in their own clubhouse. Sagard, WPoS, and Cardinal excepted in that they do bring a degree of civility and understanding to this board, unlike many of their brethren. E.g. Bucky, Rex, 'pherz, and assorted other numbskulls.

The Goofers have proven nearly all year that they are without leadership, without direction, and without heart. They have been, and will simply continue to be, utter non-factors this college hockey season. The only reason that they are as high as they are right now, and on the bubble as a result, is because they are a WCHA team that has played, albeit rather with mediocrity, a WCHA schedule.

While the Goofers have had wild historical success against the Mavericks, that will be righting itself this weekend. Here is saying that the Mavericks absolutely kill the Gophers in two straight.

Just in time for the golden boys to get jobs riding the corn planters down in southern Minnesota in a few more weeks . . . .

Tigers. Sioux. Bulldogs. Mavericks. Huskies. It's gonna be a great Final Five, and an even better NCAA.

I am in the camp that thinks that the goofs should not make the NCAA's because they have been a medicore team this year. But I will just say one thing, we have all seen teams go on runs, I am not sure the goofs could, but no one really expected Mankato to have the season they are having. So while the goofs are not the team they have been in years past, I honestly am scared of them putting together a little steak and going deep into the NCAA's. But as I said I just do not know if they have the talent this year, or the leadership. just my two cents. Sorry for the rant

[Gopherguy33]

Gosh I get sick and tired of reading about the Goofies and their so-called "chances," and who they are, where they have been, and when and where they might be going, on this board. I understand that this is a Bracketology thread, so it is certainly a legitimate discussion. Nonetheless, I get tired of certain folks getting their strokes over the Goofs' pretended chances over here instead of over in their own clubhouse. Sagard, WPoS, and Cardinal excepted in that they do bring a degree of civility and understanding to this board, unlike many of their brethren. E.g. Bucky, Rex, 'pherz, and assorted other numbskulls.

The Goofers have proven nearly all year that they are without leadership, without direction, and without heart. They have been, and will simply continue to be, utter non-factors this college hockey season. The only reason that they are as high as they are right now, and on the bubble as a result, is because they are a WCHA team that has played, albeit rather with mediocrity, a WCHA schedule.

While the Goofers have had wild historical success against the Mavericks, that will be righting itself this weekend. Here is saying that the Mavericks absolutely kill the Gophers in two straight.

Just in time for the golden boys to get jobs riding the corn planters down in southern Minnesota in a few more weeks . . . .

Tigers. Sioux. Bulldogs. Mavericks. Huskies. It's gonna be a great Final Five, and an even better NCAA.

Why am I different than any other Sioux loving fan? I suppport my team through thick and thin. Half of your site blasts fans that don't, you then, critisize those that do. Just because the word Gopher is in my name you stereotype. I have posted under another name the same basic post as a Sioux screen name and hours later as a gopher fan. Amazing the difference from some of you. Piss and moan all you want, the very idea you share about your team you condem in another. Your team may lose 4 games in a row and be done, just as well my team may lose 2 in a row and be done. I should stop supporting them? would you?

Proud Numbskull!!! Go Gophers!!!!!!!

[MafiaMan]

Why am I different than any other Sioux loving fan? I suppport my team through thick and thin. Half of your site blasts fans that don't, you then, critisize those that do. Just because the word Gopher is in my name you stereotype. I have posted under another name the same basic post as a Sioux screen name and hours later as a gopher fan. Amazing the difference from some of you. Piss and moan all you want, the very idea you share about your team you condem in another. Your team may lose 4 games in a row and be done, just as well my team may lose 2 in a row and be done. I should stop supporting them? would you?

Yep. And yep. I'd become a Sioux fan.

[SiouxBomb]

Yep. And yep. I'd become a Sioux fan.

Maybe the Gophers can play a 7th place game Wed night at the Xcel, for revnue purposes only LOL

[sagard]

Yep. And yep. I'd become a Sioux fan.

Funny every time I become a Sioux fan you guys give up a touch down in the Frozen Four. I don't think you want me on your side.

7th place game. Brilliant!

[AZSIOUX]

Funny every time I become a Sioux fan you guys give up a touch down in the Frozen Four. I don't think you want me on your side.

7th place game. Brilliant!

at least we havent given up the extra point yet

[mikejm]

The only reason that (the Gophers) are as high as they are right now, and on the bubble as a result, is because they are a WCHA team that has played, albeit rather with mediocrity, a WCHA schedule.

This one sentence sort of encapsulates a thought that's been rattling around in my empty head for about a month as I watched the Pairwise sort itself out. (And please keep in mind I am a 35+ year WCHA fan.)

I think it is pretty evident that CC and UND are superior hockey clubs. They've played and defeated great clubs outside the conference, in addition to their obvious success in the WCHA. One might be able to add Denver to this discussion, but I'm not convinced after watching their collapse against the Sioux last month.

The clubs in, really, 3rd through 7th (and maybe 8th & 9th) look to me to be just average, both in their season record and their talent level. Each of these teams has a player I'd like to see wearing green, but not a bunch from any one club.

So my point (if there really is one) is this:

Are these "second-tier" WCHA clubs really, I mean really as good as their Pairwise rankings would seem to indicate? Or does their success in their limited exposure outside of the conference, coupled with the WCHA essentially cannibalizing itself week-in and week-out (aside from CC and UND) create a mathematical illusion and thereby point out the fallacy of the whole Pairwise (and perhaps KRACH) ranking system.

KRACH is particularly telling in that 8 of the top 12 teams are from the WCHA. As much as I'd like to believe our conference is the best in the country, from what I've seen, it ain't that much better.

Interested in your thoughts.

[MafiaMan]

Funny every time I become a Sioux fan you guys give up a touch down in the Frozen Four. I don't think you want me on your side.

Maybe if I wear my Maine jersey and Sioux hat, it'll bring me some good luck?

[buckysieve]

This one sentence sort of encapsulates a thought that's been rattling around in my empty head for about a month as I watched the Pairwise sort itself out. (And please keep in mind I am a 35+ year WCHA fan.)

I think it is pretty evident that CC and UND are superior hockey clubs. They've played and defeated great clubs outside the conference, in addition to their obvious success in the WCHA. One might be able to add Denver to this discussion, but I'm not convinced after watching their collapse against the Sioux last month.

The clubs in, really, 3rd through 7th (and maybe 8th & 9th) look to me to be just average, both in their season record and their talent level. Each of these teams has a player I'd like to see wearing green, but not a bunch from any one club.

So my point (if there really is one) is this:

Are these "second-tier" WCHA clubs really, I mean really as good as their Pairwise rankings would seem to indicate? Or does their success in their limited exposure outside of the conference, coupled with the WCHA essentially cannibalizing itself week-in and week-out (aside from CC and UND) create a mathematical illusion and thereby point out the fallacy of the whole Pairwise (and perhaps KRACH) ranking system.

KRACH is particularly telling in that 8 of the top 12 teams are from the WCHA. As much as I'd like to believe our conference is the best in the country, from what I've seen, it ain't that much better.

Interested in your thoughts.

I know what you mean. Something just doesn't feel right about a seventh place team who is one game above .500 making the NCAA tourney. As a Gopher fan who's watched this team all year, I really don't think they've earned a trip to the NCAA's.

[gopherz]

Why am I different than any other Sioux loving fan? I suppport my team through thick and thin. Half of your site blasts fans that don't, you then, critisize those that do. Just because the word Gopher is in my name you stereotype. I have posted under another name the same basic post as a Sioux screen name and hours later as a gopher fan. Amazing the difference from some of you. Piss and moan all you want, the very idea you share about your team you condem in another. Your team may lose 4 games in a row and be done, just as well my team may lose 2 in a row and be done. I should stop supporting them? would you?

Proud Numbskull!!! Go Gophers!!!!!!!

Numbskulls it is then if we want to support our team when everyone else is giving up hope. What makes it different, if we just packed it in, said we sucked and the Sioux were going to win it all? Obviously thats the difference between a "numbskull" and someone else.

[sagard]

I know what you mean. Something just doesn't feel right about a seventh place team who is one game above .500 making the NCAA tourney. As a Gopher fan who's watched this team all year, I really don't think they've earned a trip to the NCAA's.

If the Gophers make it they will have earned it as much as SCSU did a couple years ago with their 0.500 record. They will draw some top team and likely get beat because they can't score.

[UMDDogz]

I know what you mean. Something just doesn't feel right about a seventh place team who is one game above .500 making the NCAA tourney. As a Gopher fan who's watched this team all year, I really don't think they've earned a trip to the NCAA's.

Only problem is...leaving out WCHA's "mediocre" teams, opens the door for the dregs of the CupCakeHA and Hockey LEast. The Dogs would be well above .500 playing the likes of Northeastern, Lowell, Merrimack, and Western Michigan...

[AZSIOUX]

they need to add the .500 rule. no way in hell a team should be in the ncaa tourney as a at large bid below .500 now if you win the conference tourney then you earned it for that week or 2 but not as a at large bid

[UMDDogz]

they need to add the .500 rule. no way in hell a team should be in the ncaa tourney as a at large bid below .500 now if you win the conference tourney then you earned it for that week or 2 but not as a at large bid

That would reward scheduling cupcakes for your NC schedule (think college football)...and reward those playing in weaker conferences. No team wants to be penalized for playing in tWCHA. The Dogs had the second toughest schedule in the NCAA.

Plus, I sincerely doubt anyone will make it with a less than .500 rating as it is. The Pairwise you see today will be radcally different at the end of the conference tourneys...especially in the 10-17 area. The teams that win will be in, thus eliminating the necessity of such a rule.

[AZSIOUX]

That would reward scheduling cupcakes for your NC schedule (think college football)...and reward those playing in weaker conferences. No team wants to be penalized for playing in tWCHA. The Dogs had the second toughest schedule in the NCAA.

Plus, I sincerely doubt anyone will make it with a less than .500 rating as it is. The Pairwise you see today will be radcally different at the end of the conference tourneys...especially in the 10-17 area. The teams that win will be in, thus eliminating the necessity of such a rule.

thats miami then, they dont play anyone and it will show in the ncaa tourney. i understand your point and agree and i also agree there wont be a team under .500 in but just in case i think it should be in the rules.

[Gopherguy33]

I know what you mean. Something just doesn't feel right about a seventh place team who is one game above .500 making the NCAA tourney. As a Gopher fan who's watched this team all year, I really don't think they've earned a trip to the NCAA's.

I agree. I will take it, I don't think they have earned a spot in the tourney. I will still cheer for them.

[MafiaMan]

The Dogs would be well above .500 playing the likes of Northeastern, Lowell, Merrimack, and Western Michigan...

Northeastern: 2-1 vs UNH this year including 2 wins @ Durham. 2-1 vs BC including 2 wins @ Chestnut Hill. On the flip side, they are 0-4 vs BU and 1-1-1 vs Vermont.

UMD: 0-4 vs Colorado College this year. 1-3 vs North Dakota this year. 1-1 vs Denver this year.

Which team has the better case for an NCAA tournament bid based on that? I'm not sure.

As for Merrimack and Western Michigan, are you saying that the WCHA's worst team record-wise (Alaska-Anchorage) is far superior to those teams? I'd hardly say using the conference bottom-feeders is a true measure of conference superiority.

[farce poobah]

This year, more than ever, the last 3 teams in the WCHA would be home-ice winners in any other league.

Heck, the WCHA's last place team is UNBEATEN out of conference. (4-0-2).

#7 in the WCHA (6-2-2 OOC, a .700 winning percentage) is good enough be #3 in a different league.

I didn't cherry-pick those two, everyone in the WCHA is over .500 out of conference, and some by quite a bit.

No way should there be a .500 rule. I don't want more Mediocre Cupcakes in the tournament; bring on the Gophers again instead. (Even if the Sioux chances are worse against them.) This year, the WCHA kicked everyones butt and have EARNED 7 teams.

Play the best competition you can find and let Simple Math sort it out.

[HaksHomey]

This year, more than ever, the last 3 teams in the WCHA would be home-ice winners in any other league.

Heck, the WCHA's last place team is UNBEATEN out of conference. (4-0-2).

#7 in the WCHA (6-2-2 OOC, a .700 winning percentage) is good enough be #3 in a different league.

No way should there be a .500 rule. I don't want more Mediocre Cupcakes in the tournament; bring on the Gophers again instead. (Even if the Sioux chances are worse against them.) This year, the WCHA kicked everyones butt and have EARNED 7 teams.

Play the best competition you can find and let Simple Math sort it out.

I do. Want to be tested during the regular season with a tough schedule, but in the tournament, come on, you have to welcome the softies.

[farce poobah]

I do. Want to be tested during the regular season with a tough schedule, but in the tournament, come on, you have to welcome the softies.

Softies via autobid yes, because I agree with the idea of universal access.

Softies just because all they play is even softer, I'd rather not.

[rochsioux]

Last year the WCHA had a similar number of teams highly ranked by KRACH and only got 3 teams in the NCAA tourny. I believe there were 3 or 4 teams that just missed out. This year there is a good chance of 6 or 7 teams making it but only 3 are solidly in. The others will probably just squeak in this year on the right side of the bubble.

The real problem is that the pairwise system is a very poor way of choosing teams. The only positive thing going for it is that it is very transparent.

The problems are numerous, not the least that it may be beneficial for a team to lose a game. A few years ago Wisconsin played AA in the first round. During the season they went 4-0 against AA, then split the first two games playoff games. Winning the 3rd game would now drop AA from TUC and thereby Wisconsin would lose a 6-1 TUC record. A loss would keep AA as a TUC and the Badgers would get to keep a 5-2 TUC record. So a scenario could arise where it is possible for a team to lock up an NCAA bid by losing a game where winning the game may keep them as a bubble team or force them to win the conference tourny to get a bid. That is not right. Any system that could reward a team in this instance for losing is fatally flawed and should be scrapped.

Some of the other pairwise components are also a joke, such as common opponents (COP). One team might be 3-0-1 while the other team is 1-0, so the team with the 1-0 wins this comparison and gets one point. This puts too much weight on a handful of non-conference games.

For TUC, UND has played 31 of 35 games this year against TUC. Since TUC is defined as the top 25 RPI teams, playing team #25 counts as much as playing team #1. Right now Michigan wins the TUC comparison with the Sioux as they have an 11-3-2 record while the Sioux have a record of 19-8-4. Which team has played the tougher schedule ? Why the top 25 ? If we use records against the top 10 in KRACH we have UND at 10-5-2 and Michigan at 3-2-2, then UND wins the comparison. Then there is the TUC "cliff" where one team gets to keep a 4-0 record against team #25 while another team that went 4-0 against team #26 doesn't get those as TUC wins.

The pairwise is basically a sum of flawed parts so the end result can be very flawed. This system needs to be thrown out and replaced with something else such as KRACH.

[farce poobah]

The real problem is that the pairwise system is a very poor way of choosing teams. The only positive thing going for it is that it is very transparent.

The pairwise is basically a sum of flawed parts so the end result can be very flawed. This system needs to be thrown out and replaced with something else such as KRACH.

Nice summary of the pairwise flaws.

Interesting that under KRACH (a "recursive ratings percentage index"), 8 WCHA teams would be solidly in.

http://siouxsports.com/hockey/rankings/krach/

[The Whistler]

Last year the WCHA had a similar number of teams highly ranked by KRACH and only got 3 teams in the NCAA tourny. I believe there were 3 or 4 teams that just missed out. This year there is a good chance of 6 or 7 teams making it but only 3 are solidly in. The others will probably just squeak in this year on the right side of the bubble.

The real problem is that the pairwise system is a very poor way of choosing teams. The only positive thing going for it is that it is very transparent.

The problems are numerous, not the least that it may be beneficial for a team to lose a game. A few years ago Wisconsin played AA in the first round. During the season they went 4-0 against AA, then split the first two games playoff games. Winning the 3rd game would now drop AA from TUC and thereby Wisconsin would lose a 6-1 TUC record. A loss would keep AA as a TUC and the Badgers would get to keep a 5-2 TUC record. So a scenario could arise where it is possible for a team to lock up an NCAA bid by losing a game where winning the game may keep them as a bubble team or force them to win the conference tourny to get a bid. That is not right. Any system that could reward a team in this instance for losing is fatally flawed and should be scrapped.

Some of the other pairwise components are also a joke, such as common opponents (COP). One team might be 3-0-1 while the other team is 1-0, so the team with the 1-0 wins this comparison and gets one point. This puts too much weight on a handful of non-conference games.

For TUC, UND has played 31 of 35 games this year against TUC. Since TUC is defined as the top 25 RPI teams, playing team #25 counts as much as playing team #1. Right now Michigan wins the TUC comparison with the Sioux as they have an 11-3-2 record while the Sioux have a record of 19-8-4. Which team has played the tougher schedule ? Why the top 25 ? If we use records against the top 10 in KRACH we have UND at 10-5-2 and Michigan at 3-2-2, then UND wins the comparison. Then there is the TUC "cliff" where one team gets to keep a 4-0 record against team #25 while another team that went 4-0 against team #26 doesn't get those as TUC wins.

The pairwise is basically a sum of flawed parts so the end result can be very flawed. This system needs to be thrown out and replaced with something else such as KRACH.

I agree with what you're saying, but it's not that far off from the KRACH which is pretty much agreed upon as the best method. Of course I never remembered a bit of statistics after the walk home from the test.

[MafiaMan]

This year, more than ever, the last 3 teams in the WCHA would be home-ice winners in any other league.

Heck, the WCHA's last place team is UNBEATEN out of conference. (4-0-2).

#7 in the WCHA (6-2-2 OOC, a .700 winning percentage) is good enough be #3 in a different league.

I didn't cherry-pick those two, everyone in the WCHA is over .500 out of conference, and some by quite a bit.

No way should there be a .500 rule. I don't want more Mediocre Cupcakes in the tournament; bring on the Gophers again instead. (Even if the Sioux chances are worse against them.) This year, the WCHA kicked everyones butt and have EARNED 7 teams.

Play the best competition you can find and let Simple Math sort it out.

Let's apply that theory to college backetball too. Do you also believe that Mt. St Mary's, San Diego, or Coppin State are better than Florida, Kentucky, or Syracuse?

Let's just put every WCHA team in the NCAA tournament, throw in four other conference winners, and flip a conduct an NBA-style lottery for the final two spots. The system is what it is...

For those of you ripping on how bad the CCHA is, remember that their fourth place team from a year ago won the national championship.

[mikejm]

Blah blah blah blah blah college backetballblah. Blah blah blah blah blah? Yadda yadda ya.

Hey pal. Be careful.

You can be banned for swearing on here.